rankings in leagues
- Thread starter Goose1972
- Start date
This has been discussed many times on this forum. I think you are going to have someone post here and tell you to do a search (not me though 
).
This is how I rank players:
1.) Can't play a lick
2.) Plays o.k.
3.) Plays pretty good
4.) Plays damn good
5.) Plays exceptionally well
6.) Plays so good that I am in awe
If you want to make my rankings a bit more detailed, just use the + or - symbols to do so. Example:
1.) Can't play a lick-
2.) Can't play a lick
3.) Can't play a lick+
4.) Plays o.k.-
5.) Plays o.k.
6.) Plays o.k.+
7.) Plays pretty good-
8.) Plays pretty good
9.) Plays pretty good+
10.) Plays damn good-
11.) Plays damn good
12.) Plays damn good+
13.) Plays exceptionally well-
14.) Plays exceptionally well
15.) Plays exceptionally well+
16.) Plays so good that I am in awe-
17.) Plays so good that I am in awe
18.) Plays so good that I am in awe+
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Oh, there are those that like to use letters of the alphabet to rank players, but they are the ones that merely have a problem expressing things in full sentences (reagardless of how short the sentence
).
FWIW, I am an APA SL6. I think I play pretty good to pretty good-.
Hope this helps!!!
Maniac (now removing tongue from cheek:smile
).This is how I rank players:
1.) Can't play a lick
2.) Plays o.k.
3.) Plays pretty good
4.) Plays damn good
5.) Plays exceptionally well
6.) Plays so good that I am in awe
If you want to make my rankings a bit more detailed, just use the + or - symbols to do so. Example:
1.) Can't play a lick-
2.) Can't play a lick
3.) Can't play a lick+
4.) Plays o.k.-
5.) Plays o.k.
6.) Plays o.k.+
7.) Plays pretty good-
8.) Plays pretty good
9.) Plays pretty good+
10.) Plays damn good-
11.) Plays damn good
12.) Plays damn good+
13.) Plays exceptionally well-
14.) Plays exceptionally well
15.) Plays exceptionally well+
16.) Plays so good that I am in awe-
17.) Plays so good that I am in awe
18.) Plays so good that I am in awe+
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Oh, there are those that like to use letters of the alphabet to rank players, but they are the ones that merely have a problem expressing things in full sentences (reagardless of how short the sentence
).FWIW, I am an APA SL6. I think I play pretty good to pretty good-.
Hope this helps!!!
Maniac (now removing tongue from cheek:smile
To compare
APA to other leagues, you have to know how each of them handicaps.
For example - BCA 4 man team is handicapped 1 to 60. Take 60/7 (maximum handicap in APA 8 ball) = 8.57 x 6 (the player's handicap) =
51.42 rounded down to 51.
VNEA has 13 handicap levels, so 13/7 = 1.857 x 6 (player's handicap) =
11.142 rounded down to 11.
For an APA4: BCA formula = 60/7=8.57 x 4 = 34.28 rounded down to 34.
VNEA formula = 13/7 = 1.857 x 4 = 7.428 rounded down to 7
For each level in APA when converted to BCA is 8.57 handicap points.
For each level in APA when converted to VNEA is 1.857 handicap points.
The APA does not have enough handicap levels. This puts more of a range of players at the same level, which promotes sandbagging than say the BCA. The BCA and VNEA are more definitive because they have more levels of handicapping.
APA to other leagues, you have to know how each of them handicaps.
For example - BCA 4 man team is handicapped 1 to 60. Take 60/7 (maximum handicap in APA 8 ball) = 8.57 x 6 (the player's handicap) =
51.42 rounded down to 51.
VNEA has 13 handicap levels, so 13/7 = 1.857 x 6 (player's handicap) =
11.142 rounded down to 11.
For an APA4: BCA formula = 60/7=8.57 x 4 = 34.28 rounded down to 34.
VNEA formula = 13/7 = 1.857 x 4 = 7.428 rounded down to 7
For each level in APA when converted to BCA is 8.57 handicap points.
For each level in APA when converted to VNEA is 1.857 handicap points.
The APA does not have enough handicap levels. This puts more of a range of players at the same level, which promotes sandbagging than say the BCA. The BCA and VNEA are more definitive because they have more levels of handicapping.
Yes overall skill level in one area can be different in my opinion. The Biggest difference is equipment (again in my opinion) I have played in areas where they have wide mouth valleys and even some wide mouth diamonds. The players in that area that is rated as a SL5 will not match up well against a SL5 that plays in an area where tight pocket diamonds are the norm. Table size can also make a big difference 7'-8'-9' ?
I see your point and agree. If the leauge tends to be weak, your ranking could very possibly be higher than if you played in one that had a lot of very good teams.
The BCA leauge I play in is pretty darn competitive. Yes we have some weak teams, but for the most part, there are a lot of stong teams as well. It is a 5 team league played on Diamond or Brunswick 8 footers. The Brunswicks are a little more forgiving than the Diamonds. Personal handicap is based on wins and losses of the individual. We play 5 rounds, each time playing a different opponent with the 6th round being determined solely by team ball count. 10 for a win, and number of balls pocketed for the loser. Personal handicap ranking is 1-10. We play about 36 weeks.
I would rank it similar to the first poster
1-4 doesn't play well, has trouble pocketing balls unless the shot is easy
5 wins every now and then, probably average for a non serious weekend player
6 wins more than the 5 but probably takes his game seriously, not consistent
7 has the potential to win any game given a shot, more consistent than a 6, but still has consistency problems at times but overall a decent player
8 can play pretty sporty and is consistent, best run out or get safe if you get a shot, runs out fairly often.
9 an excellent player, extremely consistent. Runs out a lot.
10 don't have any of these in our league
I would rank it similar to the first poster
1-4 doesn't play well, has trouble pocketing balls unless the shot is easy
5 wins every now and then, probably average for a non serious weekend player
6 wins more than the 5 but probably takes his game seriously, not consistent
7 has the potential to win any game given a shot, more consistent than a 6, but still has consistency problems at times but overall a decent player
8 can play pretty sporty and is consistent, best run out or get safe if you get a shot, runs out fairly often.
9 an excellent player, extremely consistent. Runs out a lot.
10 don't have any of these in our league
I see you are in Queens NY.
Amsterdam Billiards in Manhattan has a beginner BCA 8/9 ball team league and an intermediate/advanced BCA 9 ball team league. Beginner league rankings are 2,3,4... to 11. Advanced league rankings are D, D+, C, C+....A, A+,Open, Open +, Pro. 7 in the beginner league is a D or D+ in the advanced league. The beginner league handicaps balls, the advanced league handicaps games. All matches are played on 9 foot tables.
I know a few people that play in the beginner league and also play APA. I believe the APA ranking number is approx -2 from the Amsterdam beginner league number.
If you combine the Amsterdam rankings of both leagues, there are 16 handicap levels. That is after getting rid of the overlap beyond HC 7. I'm not sure how many high level people in NYC are playing APA on barbox tables. I imagine the higher level players would prefer playing BCA on a 9 foot table.
Last edited:
I posted this opinion in a prior thread and got hammered for it. I still believe it to be true.
I posted this opinion in a prior thread and got hammered for it. I still believe it to be true.
If all APA leagues in the country rank from 2 to 7, not sure why you would get hammered. It makes perfect sense. I don't play APA.
I posted this opinion in a prior thread and got hammered for it. I still believe it to be true.
well i spare apparently full time!?! in a league and its master league pretty much with some A+ and A teams in it on Tuesday, great pool. Now on wednsday's they have another league that has A and B teams in it and quite a bit weaker than tuesdays night league, but they use the same scoring system. Now the guy with the highest average in the league wednesday is not even in the top 20 on the tuesdays league.
I'm under the impression in APA that winning the match isn't the only criteria of ranking. Lets just say that you went 15-0 as a SL6 but your innings on most/all games were 3-4. That scenario would be unlikely but surely you wouldn't move up in SL. I believe you have got to be running out to move up SL and you can do that vs players in stronger or weaker leagues. I could absolutely see a variance of 1SL but IMO not 2SL. And you were just giving an example so I'm not attacking you
I posted this opinion in a prior thread and got hammered for it. I still believe it to be true.
Let them hammer you all they want. I have been to enough tricup playoffs and singles regionals to see the differences. I have never sandbagged yet our team more times than not wins matches and get called sandbaggers out loud. They play on buckets some with dead rails and we play on new diamonds. It takes a better player to come up with 4 innings game on our table than a player who is use to a table that allows you to just close to the pocket for it to fall in.
Its easier for me to adjust my speed than for them learn to aim better
Some higher level players in NYC play APA 8 Ball in the city. I wont name names, but there are A+ and Open players from Society and Amsterdam who play APA 8 Ball. What is a weird situation is that an APA SL7 can be anywhere from a C+ to an Open player in the BCA leagues in the city. This means that there would be huge weight in the BCA if a C+ played an Open player, but playing in the APA it would be an even race.
I am not sure where I am going with this, it has just always seemed odd to me.
There is no way to really answer this question as others have stated. Your handicap is based on your area and local competition. An apa7 from a small town in rural IL will more than likely be crushed by an apa7 from Chicago or other area with more people and tougher competion. I subbed on a team for a friend last year and I can say that even which side of town you are on in our area matters. If you are a strong player on the west side and win say 70% of you matches, you will be over 90% on the east side. They can't run a rack on that side of town. It's not fair at all -and gets you raised if you're not bagging against the eggs.
Oh and going back to an earlier comment in the thread; it doesn't take much to qualify for singles and get to Vegas. There are a ton of qualifiers and you only have to win one I believe. I could be wrong about that though. However, I've seen plenty of terrible players qualify for singles.
Oh and going back to an earlier comment in the thread; it doesn't take much to qualify for singles and get to Vegas. There are a ton of qualifiers and you only have to win one I believe. I could be wrong about that though. However, I've seen plenty of terrible players qualify for singles.
Goose1972
Banned
asides from sand bagging in the APA, how would region affect rankings, if it's all based on innings played, the different ranking criteria has through extensice scientific reserch leveled the grading factor when accounting for different sized tables.
in regards to ny apa, i agree with the poster on 7's, the range of player you see in this category sometimes makes no sense. i magine these players are the overly defensive psycopaths, who when put on a big table in the bca, have no place to hide.
in regards to ny apa, i agree with the poster on 7's, the range of player you see in this category sometimes makes no sense. i magine these players are the overly defensive psycopaths, who when put on a big table in the bca, have no place to hide.
Forget about the tongue in cheek. This is better than most ranking systems.This has been discussed many times on this forum. I think you are going to have someone post here and tell you to do a search (not me though
This is how I rank players:
1.) Can't play a lick
2.) Plays o.k.
3.) Plays pretty good
4.) Plays damn good
5.) Plays exceptionally well
6.) Plays so good that I am in awe
If you want to make my rankings a bit more detailed, just use the + or - symbols to do so. Example:
1.) Can't play a lick-
2.) Can't play a lick
3.) Can't play a lick+
4.) Plays o.k.-
5.) Plays o.k.
6.) Plays o.k.+
7.) Plays pretty good-
8.) Plays pretty good
9.) Plays pretty good+
10.) Plays damn good-
11.) Plays damn good
12.) Plays damn good+
13.) Plays exceptionally well-
14.) Plays exceptionally well
15.) Plays exceptionally well+
16.) Plays so good that I am in awe-
17.) Plays so good that I am in awe
18.) Plays so good that I am in awe+
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Oh, there are those that like to use letters of the alphabet to rank players, but they are the ones that merely have a problem expressing things in full sentences (reagardless of how short the sentence
FWIW, I am an APA SL6. I think I play pretty good to pretty good-.
Hope this helps!!!
Maniac (now removing tongue from cheek:smile
I'd have to ask something though... you have "can't play a lick..." Is "play ok" the same as "can play a little lick"?
Last edited:
The simple reason is that because it is based on innings per win as well as a few other items. A player might encounter less innings or more wins or both in a lower competitive area.
It happens. I've given the story of one of my teammates who was about 50/50 as an APA-4 in my area. He moved to a college town with a lot of transient players and whose best player would be hard-pressed to have been ranked in the top 5 in my area. He (my teammate) was almost unbeatable in this college town and rose to and SL-6. He was described (by the APA players in the college town) as a "strong SL-6 and borderling SL-7." Same guy, same game, different competition. It's easy to win and have your handicap climb if nobody is hitting back.
Even in my own case, I was playing two leagues one session when I first started playing where I was an SL-6 in one and losing and an SL-7 in another and undefeated. If you always play SL-7's that are better than you, your handicap will not go up;
Goose1972
Banned
i dont think anyone is only gonna face 7's and never win, if you play it's mathematical and it should equate nationally
im in two different leagues also, ones large table, one is small, i think there is definitely a difference in the rankings, but not due to tables, as this is scientifically/mathematically equalized, i think the difference comes in league attitude on scoring. in brooklyn queens where i play, no one is scoring much defense. in manhattan almost every miss that looks greater then 3 inches is conspiracy theory defense.
as i said before the top level being a 7 groups alot of folks who are different, and probably get spread out better in the bca. real 7's run out tables, low end apa 7's run out 6 balls play defense then finish. 1-1=0 innings (is that how it works or am i just talking out of my @ss?
im in two different leagues also, ones large table, one is small, i think there is definitely a difference in the rankings, but not due to tables, as this is scientifically/mathematically equalized, i think the difference comes in league attitude on scoring. in brooklyn queens where i play, no one is scoring much defense. in manhattan almost every miss that looks greater then 3 inches is conspiracy theory defense.
as i said before the top level being a 7 groups alot of folks who are different, and probably get spread out better in the bca. real 7's run out tables, low end apa 7's run out 6 balls play defense then finish. 1-1=0 innings (is that how it works or am i just talking out of my @ss?